PDA

View Full Version : AmpliTube Live


arn
Jan 12, 2003, 01:14 AM
Amplitube Live (http://www.amplitube.com/Main.html?ATLive)

To see a demo of it... watch The Power of X speech and scroll to 01:13:00 (one hour, 13 minutes) into it.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/powerofx03/

Basically, provides real time digital signal processing via OS X to provide amplifier effects to your guitar. Pretty cool.

arn

Rower_CPU
Jan 12, 2003, 01:46 AM
Yeah, I saw it and said to myself:
"Hey (self)...you should learn guitar." :D

Pretty damn cool stuff...and that guys wails, too!

springscansing
Jan 12, 2003, 03:55 AM
What's so amazing about this? There's already Line 6 Pod plug-ins for TDM systems, and lots of other amp modeling ones too. Is it just cool because it is standalone? I mean realtime audio processing isn't exactly something brand new or reliant on X...

springscansing
Jan 12, 2003, 03:59 AM
la de da.. nevermind me.

springscansing
Jan 12, 2003, 04:02 AM
Hm.. just listened to the demos. It does sound quite well actually. Still I think its too much money for what it is.

mac15
Jan 12, 2003, 04:19 AM
the power of X was cool, I really like that app , now I wish I could plays guitar

dricci
Jan 12, 2003, 05:22 AM
Yeah, just seeing that app gave me the urge to learn how to play guitar, too. It looks like that could be used for some pretty cool things.

Mal
Jan 12, 2003, 07:56 AM
The software is $99. Amplitube XLive is coing out later for $299, prob with some advanced capabilities. This is a great piece of software!

JW

RowdyBacon
Jan 12, 2003, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by springscansing
That software is way overpriced. It should be $99, no more.

Actually, Amplitube has won accolades (and a couple of awards) from a substantial number of industry trade publications (Keyboard, Sound On Sound, Computer Music, etc.) as being one of the most outstanding software plug-ins released in 2002. Almost without exception, it has been lauded as being the most authentic and versatile amp modeller currently available from any developer.

And by the way, if you bothered to view Mark Altekruse's entire demo of Amplitube, you'd have heard him say at the very end that it is going to be available for $99!

macmax
Jan 12, 2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by springscansing
What's so amazing about this? There's already Line 6 Pod plug-ins for TDM systems, and lots of other amp modeling ones too. Is it just cool because it is standalone? I mean realtime audio processing isn't exactly something brand new or reliant on X...

UGH! I just saw the price on it! Ackies! 400 bucks?! Why don't you just go buy a Line 6 Pod II... its a proven design that sounds GREAT, and has a heck of a lot more amp and cabinet models than that software. Ugh. What a ripoff.

Plus its actual hardware... it's not going to crash during a gig, and you can utalize the Pod floorboard to quickly change presets during a live set.

That software is way overpriced. It should be $99, no more.

For my live gigs i would never use a stupid pod,
I use a fender guitar with Tom Anderson pickups and a Dual Rectifier Tremoverb modded by Voodooamps.
Why would i buy a stupid , awful ****ty sounding line 6 gear.
As for the amplitube , if i buy one , it will be because it is a software, duh.

It will be like a toy, notsomething i would consider pro anyway.

The difference between this software and the line 6 is that at least they (Amplitube) don't have the obsession of making amps or something that looks like an amp like those *******s in line 6, what a joke.:mad:

springscansing
Jan 12, 2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by macmax


For my live gigs i would never use a stupid pod,
I use a fender guitar with Tom Anderson pickups and a Dual Rectifier Tremoverb modded by Voodooamps.
Why would i buy a stupid , awful ****ty sounding line 6 gear.
As for the amplitube , if i buy one , it will be because it is a software, duh.

It will be like a toy, notsomething i would consider pro anyway.

The difference between this software and the line 6 is that at least they (Amplitube) don't have the obsession of making amps or something that looks like an amp like those *******s in line 6, what a joke.:mad:

Hey, obviously anyone who can afford it would use a real amp. I'm just saying I'd take the pod over that software for the same price.

springscansing
Jan 12, 2003, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by RowdyBacon

And by the way, if you bothered to view Mark Altekruse's entire demo of Amplitube, you'd have heard him say at the very end that it is going to available for $99!

I didn't view any of the demo actually, heh. I checked the website. It said $399. I must've been looking at something else. In that case, it's a good deal.

What the hell was I looking at though?

springscansing
Jan 12, 2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by skywalker
The software is $99. Amplitube XLive is coing out later for $299, prob with some advanced capabilities. This is a great piece of software!

JW

I saw $399 on the website. I must've been mistaken and confused the price for something else with the price for this. For $99, it's a good deal.

alex_ant
Jan 12, 2003, 07:45 PM
People should not buy this. There are way too many "guitarists" who substitute an arsenal of whizzy technological ************ for talent, because it's easier to sound weird and "cool" than it is to sound good. If you need an effect, get a pedal. If you need more than 3 pedals, then go ahead and get this software but please don't subject innocent people to your "music."

springscansing
Jan 12, 2003, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
People should not buy this. There are way too many "guitarists" who substitute an arsenal of whizzy technological ************ for talent, because it's easier to sound weird and "cool" than it is to sound good. If you need an effect, get a pedal. If you need more than 3 pedals, then go ahead and get this software but please don't subject innocent people to your "music."

Get off the damn high horse man. There's tons of great music out there that isn't even tonal. So what you are basically saying is, **** experimentation, guitars are only good if you play them with less then three pedals? To hell with innovation!

I am not saying technology is a substitution for talent, but its beyond stupid to think that it can't enhance it. How is this any different from a graphic artist using a computer to process his work?

Are you saying Danny Elfman is not talent because he scores everything and listens to it on his mac first?

Technology is great, and is not necessairly indicitive of a lack of talent if you make good use of it. This is not the first stupid post from you that I've seen. Try to think a little bit more next time, and don't be such a typical rock guitar nazi.

I'd take Reaktor 4 and Cubase SX over a Les Paul and a Marshall anyday. It's a matter of opinion. Don't be such an ass.

RowdyBacon
Jan 12, 2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
People should not buy this. There are way too many "guitarists" who substitute an arsenal of whizzy technological ************ for talent, because it's easier to sound weird and "cool" than it is to sound good. If you need an effect, get a pedal. If you need more than 3 pedals, then go ahead and get this software but please don't subject innocent people to your "music."

Who the hell appointed you the arbiter of what is and isn't good or valid "music?" Technology is nothing more than a tool for creative self-expression. Just because you don't see the need for anything more than a guitar plugged into an amp, doesn't mean someone else's musical vision isn't more far-reaching.

In his time, no one sounded more "weird and cool" than Jimi Hendrix. And to this day, there isn't a legitimate contemporary guitarist of any worth who doesn't acknowledge Hendrix's raw talent or profound influence on the tonal spectrum of the electric guitar. And guess what? Hendrix frequently used more than 3 pedals to create his palette of signature guitar sounds.

springscansing
Jan 13, 2003, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by RowdyBacon


Who the hell appointed you the arbiter of what is and isn't good or valid "music?" Technology is nothing more than a tool for creative self-expression. Just because you don't see the need for anything more than a guitar plugged into an amp, doesn't mean someone else's musical vision isn't more far-reaching.

In his time, no one sounded more "weird and cool" than Jimi Hendrix. And to this day, there isn't a legitimate contemporary guitarist of any worth who doesn't acknowledge Hendrix's raw talent or profound influence on the tonal spectrum of the electric guitar. And guess what? Hendrix frequently used more than 3 pedals to create his palette of signature guitar sounds.

Good call!

alex_ant
Jan 13, 2003, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by springscansing
Get off the damn high horse man. There's tons of great music out there that isn't even tonal. So what you are basically saying is, **** experimentation, guitars are only good if you play them with less then three pedals? To hell with innovation!
Yes, that's exactly it.
I am not saying technology is a substitution for talent, but its beyond stupid to think that it can't enhance it. How is this any different from a graphic artist using a computer to process his work?
This is another tangent I'd like to go on. Computer-"enhanced" music is far too processed and overproduced these days. People have forgotten what it sounds like to mic a 4x12 Hiwatt cab with no EQ, no effects, no nothing. In nearly every case I've seen of technology being used to improve existing art forms, the users of technology bollox their own work - they don't realize that imperfection is a part of perfection.
Are you saying Danny Elfman is not talent because he scores everything and listens to it on his mac first?
No, it is possible to have talent and to use a computer to augment that talent. My point was that waaaaay too many people substitute technology for talent and try to pass off the impression that they have talent.
Technology is great,
Says who? It's the bane of rock & roll guitar.
and is not necessairly indicitive of a lack of talent if you make good use of it.
I never said it was.

alex_ant
Jan 13, 2003, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by RowdyBacon
Who the hell appointed you the arbiter of what is and isn't good or valid "music?"
I never said anything about validity. I said something about sucktitude.
Technology is nothing more than a tool for creative self-expression.
What's creative about guitar effects? They've all been done a million times over. They're lame. People pile them on like ice cream toppings, thinking the more the better. The more effects they have, the better they'll be able to express themselves! It's nonsense. Technology isn't necessary at all to express oneself. People should spend less time working to be able to afford more gadgetry and more time practicing.
In his time, no one sounded more "weird and cool" than Jimi Hendrix. And to this day, there isn't a legitimate contemporary guitarist of any worth who doesn't acknowledge Hendrix's raw talent or profound influence on the tonal spectrum of the electric guitar. And guess what? Hendrix frequently used more than 3 pedals to create his palette of signature guitar sounds.
And he was a ****ing mega guitarist, even without the pedals! This is my whole point. Nobody breaks the barriers of the instrument itself anymore. Instead you've got people like the Edge with an entire rack of machines that enable his Explorer to sound like an electronic fart machine. Why? People buy effects instead of practicing because it's easier, and then they chew out people like me for calling them the wankers they are.

RowdyBacon
Jan 13, 2003, 08:09 AM
[edited]

railthinner
Jan 13, 2003, 10:40 AM
Alex, you come across as being completely narrow minded. I don't think you're the guy to tell the Edge or Brian Eno or any of the rest of us what good music is. You could make the argument that you shouldn't use an electric guitar because it's unnatural and that sucks. It's been said. Give it up.

You sound so frustrated because you've been struggling all this time to really be really really good and then all these guys come along with all their effects and..... 'Hey that's not fair.' boo hoo. Right, you're the legitimate musician. Keep it up.

railthinner
Jan 13, 2003, 10:45 AM
Um, anyway..... It's great if OSX and core audio can further the progress of developers toward creating zero latency processing. Think about the day when you can bring a powerbook on stage and have sequencer of some sort mix all of your processes live--for you forward thinking musicians.

alex_ant
Jan 13, 2003, 02:56 PM
Alex, you come across as being completely narrow minded.
Why? Because you don't agree with me? The current trend in rock & roll today is to be clever and "different" and to "innovate" and so on. How am I being narrow-minded in resisting this? If anything, I'm thinking outside the box and not afraid to be different. Enough effects have been tried already to point out pretty obviously that they're not going to make any more of an impact if some schmuck in Electric Egg Beater Conspiracy invents a VST instrument that makes his guitar sound like a gorilla in heroin withdrawal. I remember back when rock & roll actually meant something! Now it means nothing. It's a bunch of whining *******s with secondhand clothes a size too small trying to make up for their lack of musical talent - and I don't mean just technical talent, I mean ability to affect social change in their music - with nifty electronic devices.
I don't think you're the guy to tell the Edge or Brian Eno or any of the rest of us what good music is.
Why, who are they? Who appointed them the all-knowing musical gods? Of course I can tell them what good music is, and so can you, and so can anybody else. One of the reasons there's so much crap music today is that people are afraid to say, "Hey, you suck. You suck, and you suck, and you suck too."
You sound so frustrated because you've been struggling all this time to really be really really good and then all these guys come along with all their effects and..... 'Hey that's not fair.' boo hoo. Right, you're the legitimate musician. Keep it up.
I'm neither very good nor very bad at guitar. I'm better than many people who use lots of effects, and I'm worse than many who use lots of effects. *I* am not the issue here. There's a lot that's been said about the "democratization" of music and how it's such a great thing - that anyone can download Pro Tools Free or whatever and make their very own music to share with the world. I can see the good in this, in fact I've even taken advantage of it to some extent, but it's also had the side effect of ruining the culture and mystique of rock & roll. There are so many groups out there now that it's impossible to sift through them all, and the HUGE amount of total crap that's out there makes it impossible to find the good stuff - the real talent, the music that *could* mean something if it were given the chance, not trapped and diluted amongst the heaping piles of cliched indie rock dung. As to how this relates to guitar effects: I think it's obvious. I realize my position is very uncool, and that I would be considered very unhip in the thick black-rimmed eyeglasses and tussled-curly-hair community, but there it is for you all anyway.

wrylachlan
Jan 14, 2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

The current trend in rock & roll today is to be clever and "different" and to "innovate" and so on. How am I being narrow-minded in resisting this?


I'm sorry... I thought you just asked how resisting innovation is narrowminded... isn't that sort of the text book definition of narrowmindedness?

And as for the effects thing, I think you are discounting tonal quality as an ingredient of music. Listen to albumns that make great use of tonal quality, like OK Computer, any Pink Floyd albumn, or Achtung Baby. You can love or hate the music, but there is something specific of the tonality that without it the song wouldn't be as good. Why? Because what the words are saying interacts with the chord progressions, which interracts with the riffs, which interacts with the tonal quality in an interesting way. Change any one and the whole is lessened.

I think you are mis-placing your anger. Because effects-laden music that is really crap gets popular isn't the fault of the effects makers. It is the fault of the paying public who buy the albumns and go to see the bands live. If you hate it, vote with your wallet. Pick up that copy of Paul Westerberg or old Hendrix and put on those oversized headphones and rock out.

By the by, I gave up my electric about 3 years ago and have played nothing but acoustic ever since and am happy as a clam.

alex_ant
Jan 14, 2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by wrylachlan
I'm sorry... I thought you just asked how resisting innovation is narrowminded... isn't that sort of the text book definition of narrowmindedness?
I believe I was arguing against the idea that by not embracing "innovation" and "progress" I've "got my head in my rectum" or whatever it was. I understand how my position could seem narrowminded, and maybe it is - if it is, though, it's definitely for a reason. (That reason being laid out in prior posts)
And as for the effects thing, I think you are discounting tonal quality as an ingredient of music. Listen to albumns that make great use of tonal quality, like OK Computer, any Pink Floyd albumn, or Achtung Baby. You can love or hate the music, but there is something specific of the tonality that without it the song wouldn't be as good. Why? Because what the words are saying interacts with the chord progressions, which interracts with the riffs, which interacts with the tonal quality in an interesting way. Change any one and the whole is lessened.
I don't think I agree with that. I would change what you said to "there is something specific of the tonality that without it the song wouldn't be the same." Radiohead and U2 have done acoustic versions of effects-laden songs off both OK Computer and Achtung Baby (to use your examples) that sound just as good if not better than the originals. My question is: The Beatles could define an entire generation with 2 guitars, a bass, 3 vocals, a French horn, and a piano. Why does it take many bands an entire rack of equipment to try, and why do each of those that try still fail? They say they're experimenting. I'm still waiting for their experiments to reach the "finished product" stage, and I've been waiting since I was a fetus.
I think you are mis-placing your anger. Because effects-laden music that is really crap gets popular isn't the fault of the effects makers. It is the fault of the paying public who buy the albumns and go to see the bands live.
I don't think I was really blaming anybody for anything, I think I was lamenting the changed sound in general of what is now considered rock - the fact that bands make it, the fact that people buy & listen to it, and the fact that electronics & software companies enable them. As for whose fault it is, I don't think it's anyone's fault in particular, it's just changing tastes and a culture that doesn't happen to jibe with mine. I realize I sound like a stodgy curmudgeon, but the world is a big one, and there is room for a few of us amongst the greasy-haired. And I realize I haven't changed any opinions, but at the least, I'm glad I was finally able to stir some people up. It's getting so hard to do now in the political threads that I've had to branch out.

railthinner
Jan 14, 2003, 04:58 PM
This reminds me a little of that Simpons episode where Marge comes to the conclusion that she could be cool because she genuinely doesn't care to be bothered with trying to be cool or what others think of her. Marge may be correct except for the fact that she just doesn't get it.

I'm not trying to hurl personal insults, but I think there is just something fundamental about the entire concept of using effects that you're not getting. I'm curious what music you listen to. There isn't an album made that isn't e(a)ffected in some say by in external force. How do you find the true raw sound of an instrument? you may be on to something (only partially sarcastic) If you like a particular Bach record it may be greatly affected not only by the performance but the mics used, the hall where it was recorded, the quality of the vinyl-- whatever. Where do you draw the line? Is it ok to appreciate the sound of a performance improved by a rooms acoustics but not (subjectively) improved by the latest and greatest Lexicon box?

You're right about this as far as I can discern -- a lot of music sucks -- and that's all based on each persons opinion. No matter what you do you can't change the fact that a hell of a lot more people are going to buy Britney Spears than Spoon. Even if those people aren't really sure what they like. I know I'd rather have a thousand U2s, Radioheads and generally crapppy noisy indie bands running around than all the acapella 98 degrees (or whatever the hell their name is) any day.

And certainly just because someone is trying to experiment or use a lot of effects isn't going to mean they're any good. I don't think anyone would say that (maybe -- humans can be fairly unreasonable.) but it doesn't mean they'll instantly and neccissarily suck either.

alex_ant
Jan 14, 2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by railthinner
I'm not trying to hurl personal insults, but I think there is just something fundamental about the entire concept of using effects that you're not getting. I'm curious what music you listen to. There isn't an album made that isn't e(a)ffected in some say by in external force. How do you find the true raw sound of an instrument? you may be on to something (only partially sarcastic) If you like a particular Bach record it may be greatly affected not only by the performance but the mics used, the hall where it was recorded, the quality of the vinyl-- whatever. Where do you draw the line? Is it ok to appreciate the sound of a performance improved by a rooms acoustics but not (subjectively) improved by the latest and greatest Lexicon box?
Those are very good questions. Obviously this is only my opinion, but I would introduce the concept of "soul." I only mean that figuratively - I don't believe in a "literal" soul that can be captured and poked at or whatever. That said, it's not something that's easy to pin down. If you don't understand what I mean when I say "soul," you probably never will, but soul is the reason rich musicians pay millions of dollars for Stratavarius violins and tens of thousands for 1950s Les Pauls. It's the belief that your instrument - besides it being perfectly beautiful and having a special sonority - is a tool that can affect change. It will never become obsolete, it will never break down as long as you take good care of it, and nothing better will ever come along to take its place because it is unique and irreplaceable. It ages like good wine.

If you put a Stratavarius up against a new Yamaha violin in a subjective double-blind sound quality test, the Yamaha might actually win! That doesn't matter, because the Yamaha doesn't have a heritage, it doesn't have uniqueness, it's been mass-produced in the same Japanese factory as thousands of other identical violins by workers who don't give a damn except to the extent that they get paid by a company that doesn't give a damn except to the extent that it makes money. Not a lot of soul in the Yamaha. It will still be worth something in 50 years, but nobody will really care.

I had a girlfriend who was a classical pianist. She envied how I could carry my guitar with me wherever I went; I asked, "Why don't you get a keyboard?" She said, "It's not the same." I said (yes, I said this), "Yamaha makes a keyboard that has a very good built-in grand piano modeller and it's small so you can take it anywhere." She said, "It's still not the same," and she was right. There are lots of good piano synths, but none are the same as a real piano. And they never will be, because even if they some day manage to duplicate the sound of a real piano exactly, there's always the knowledge that they aren't real pianos.

The true raw sound of the instrument is what you hear when you yourself play it. An electric guitar is its own instrument with or without being connected to an amplifier, but an amplifier is not an instrument by itself because it can't be played. It only serves to change the sound of what's connected to it. "Aha, so it's an effect." Sure, you could think of it as that. But it has soul, so it's exempt from my effects diatribe - although some recent amps have come along with their digital modelling jobbers and I have to give them a thumbs-down. (Imitating something else that does have soul is no way to project your own.) As for my 3 pedal limit: That was only arbitrary, conceived in the idea that if you're using more than 3 pedals, your guitar is going to start sounding really icky, and you've probably got no idea what you're doing and are only aimlessly stacking on pedals for the sake of stacking on pedals.

There are lots of fancy new digital technologies designed to improve music. In my mind, they harm music by sterilizing it. When you open up a MIDI editor, it's easy - and tempting! - to make all your notes fall exactly on the beats they're supposed to, when in a real performance that would never happen. You can make adjustments in MIDI for velocity / attack / sustain etc., but it's not the same as playing a real instrument. You'll never hear a screwup in digital music because it's too tempting not to put them in. Screwups are ordinarily seen as bad in a musical performance - until you start hearing nothing but "perfection" day in and day out. Then you start to miss them, because they're a part of the human element in music that's gone missing. Perfection in music accomplished in any other way than by human virtuosity destroys that music's soul.

I think I've hammered out my idea of "soul" as well as I possibly could. So now, in short: Bach has soul. Symphony orchestras have soul. Concert halls have soul. Good microphones have soul. Vinyl records have a reasonable amount of soul. Lexicon processors don't have soul.

And I assure you I've got plenty more wacky ideas where these came from. I should write a book. "Alex_ant's Guide to Being a Nut." 16 people would buy it and I could make hundreds.
You're right about this as far as I can discern -- a lot of music sucks -- and that's all based on each persons opinion. No matter what you do you can't change the fact that a hell of a lot more people are going to buy Britney Spears than Spoon. Even if those people aren't really sure what they like. I know I'd rather have a thousand U2s, Radioheads and generally crapppy noisy indie bands running around than all the acapella 98 degrees (or whatever the hell their name is) any day.

And certainly just because someone is trying to experiment or use a lot of effects isn't going to mean they're any good. I don't think anyone would say that (maybe -- humans can be fairly unreasonable.) but it doesn't mean they'll instantly and neccissarily suck either.
I mostly agree with this. I think in most cases, though, artists (if they wish to be called that) who use effects fall back on them when their own ideas run out and use them as a crutch. "E minor - C - A minor: Been done. D - G - E minor - G: Been done. F - C - G: Been done! Damn! Hmm, what if I tried a flanger. No, a flanger AND a delay! AND a VST grungelizer! Yeah!" - The effects become an escape from tedious and frustrating months and years of practicing, and the reason that this is a bad thing is because effects don't pay off like practice does. Lots of very talented performers/guitarists use effects, though, and that's fine, I don't care - I just don't think it tends to do them a heck of a lot of good, and I think it's often a distraction to the listener, whether or not they realize it.

dricci
Jan 16, 2003, 12:25 AM
Well, I'm going to attempt to un-hijack this thread :D

Where should a person who is interested in guitar and electric guitar go for more information? I don't know much about different types and amps, but I'd really like to learn! :cool:

alex_ant
Jan 16, 2003, 06:59 AM
I remember there being a discussion about that about a month or so ago, I think in the community forums... might want to search the threads for "guitar" or "electric guitar."

RowdyBacon
Jan 16, 2003, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by dricci
Where should a person who is interested in guitar and electric guitar go for more information? I don't know much about different types and amps, but I'd really like to learn! :cool:
You might want to check out the forums at Harmony Central for starters.

http://www.harmony-central.com/

matthewjacob
Jan 16, 2003, 10:13 AM
While we were on the topic... Does anyone know what the song at the end of the "Power of X" video was?